Arash Amel says Warner Bros. didn't just hire Jason Fuchs (Pan) to write their Wonder Woman movie but they've hired five other writers to pen separate scripts. Is this a tactic that will help produce the best Wonder Woman movie possible or are WB making a mistake?

Vulture:This Open Letter by an Alleged Former Warner Bros. Employee Rages at Top Executives

I wish to God you were forced to live out of a car until you made a #1 movie of the year. Maybe Wonder Woman wouldn't be such a mess. Don't try to hide behind the great trailer. People inside are already confirming it's another mess. It is almost impressive how you keep rewarding the same producers and executives for making the same mistakes, over and over.

Vulture:Patty Jenkins Responds to Open Letter Tearing Down Wonder Woman with Tweets

Brent Lang wrote:The film-making team behind next summer’s “Wonder Woman” tells Variety that the superhero icon’s first big screen adventure will be very different from the most recent DC Comics cinematic efforts.

“‘Wonder Woman’ is very different in tone and style than ‘Batman v Superman’ and ‘Suicide Squad,'” said Deborah Snyder, a producer on all of the films.

Yeah, it was pretty bad. I don't like what's his name much at all, think he's a pretty weak leading man.That said, Gal Gadot is a freakin' knockout, and watching her in a skimpy suit jumping around and whatnot...could be worse things to submit myself to.

so sorry wrote:Yeah, it was pretty bad. I don't like what's his name much at all, think he's a pretty weak leading man.That said, Gal Gadot is a freakin' knockout, and watching her in a skimpy suit jumping around and whatnot...could be worse things to submit myself to.

The studio and producer Joel Silver have been developing a big-screen version of the DC Comics superhero, with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" creator Joss Whedon writing the script and attached to direct.

So why does the studio want another "Wonder Woman" script? Sources said the purchase is a pre-emptive measure. By taking the spec script off the market, it aims to protect itself against the possibility that any similarities between the scripts could be fodder for future legal action.

It is understood that the Jennison-Strickland script is set against the backdrop of World War II, while Whedon's script is set in the present day.

Silver has no interest in making a period version of "Wonder Woman," sources said. But as the spec script made the rounds, it landed at Silver Pictures, and executives there were impressed by Jennison and Strickland's writing.

"Wonder Woman" has long been in the hopper as a feature at Warners, and it went through several writers before Whedon came on board in March 2005.

Molly Freeman wrote:For an in-depth piece on the legacy of DC Comics’ Wonder Woman, Whedon spoke with Empire about his cancelled project. The film would have been set in modern day and featured Diana Prince leaving her home of Themyscira with the character’s comic book love interest Steve Trevor to deal with real-world problems like drug dealers in Gateway City. Whedon said:

I worked really hard on that movie and it meant a lot [to me], but I don’t know if what I was trying to do would fit in with what [the studio’s] vision is. I had a take on the film that, well, nobody liked… We just saw different movies, and at the price range this kind of movie hangs in, that’s never gonna work.

ANDY BEHBAKHT wrote:Last week, Heroic Hollywood took part in an edit bay visit for the film in London, where we met Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins, who is currently working with her team on finishing up the movie. In addition to learning new first act details and Diana’s backstory, we were fortunate to be shown new footage from the Wonder Woman film!

one could argue that he is as much a protagonist in the story as WW, and at least as much the hero, regardless of his lack of superpowers. his is a story of redemption, a man finding purpose in life amidst chaos, he has a real arc. WW is the same character in the final frame as the first, she is relatively unchanged due to what she has gone through in the story aside from knowing more.

after all these years, it's refreshing to finally see men getting the kinds of decent roles with fleshed-out, fully realized characters that women have monopolized for decades. i was worried his character would just be the typical "dude in distress" that hollywood keeps foisting on us.

after all these years, it's refreshing to finally see men getting the kinds of decent roles with fleshed-out, fully realized characters that women have monopolized for decades. i was worried his character would just be the typical "dude in distress" that hollywood keeps foisting on us.

I am sure Pine was appreciative of being used for more than just his pretty face and sexy figure

after all these years, it's refreshing to finally see men getting the kinds of decent roles with fleshed-out, fully realized characters that women have monopolized for decades. i was worried his character would just be the typical "dude in distress" that hollywood keeps foisting on us.

seriously, though, it isn't as if women are rounded up and forced to make movies, if actresses want more substantive roles than stop taking the shallow ones and agreeing to show more tits and ass than character. I have to laugh every time some actress like Scarlett Johansson talks about wanting women to get more meaty, meaningful roles when the fact is if Hollywood worked like that actresses like Johansson wouldn't be famous, since her acting chops aren't anything special. if she and other actresses that are more model than actor really believed in wanting equality they would say, "i only get these roles because I am hotter than other, better actresses" THEN I might actually believe the sincerity of their "feminist" rhetoric. (of course then there is the matter of white actresses and actors taking ethnic roles, and Johansson didn't mind doing that at all, a little hypocritical if you ask me)

Charlize Theron had to be uglied up for her oscar role. why not just hire an actress who had the ability and was plain-looking?

I think there should be more roles for women that are fleshed out and fully realized, but I think the blame game that goes on is waaaay too simplified and inaccurate as to all who are responsible for a lack of them.

SCOTT WAMPLER wrote:Turns out, Jenkins' return was not as locked-in as was previously reported. A new post over at The Hollywood Reporter reveals the following:

"While star Gal Gadot has an option in place for Wonder Woman 2 as part of her overall deal to appear in several DC movies, Warner Bros. executives enlisted Jenkins for just one film, a decision that could end up costing the studio millions of dollars if Jenkins' reps drive a hard bargain for her to return."

after all these years, it's refreshing to finally see men getting the kinds of decent roles with fleshed-out, fully realized characters that women have monopolized for decades. i was worried his character would just be the typical "dude in distress" that hollywood keeps foisting on us.

seriously, though, it isn't as if women are rounded up and forced to make movies, if actresses want more substantive roles than stop taking the shallow ones and agreeing to show more tits and ass than character. I have to laugh every time some actress like Scarlett Johansson talks about wanting women to get more meaty, meaningful roles when the fact is if Hollywood worked like that actresses like Johansson wouldn't be famous, since her acting chops aren't anything special. if she and other actresses that are more model than actor really believed in wanting equality they would say, "i only get these roles because I am hotter than other, better actresses" THEN I might actually believe the sincerity of their "feminist" rhetoric. (of course then there is the matter of white actresses and actors taking ethnic roles, and Johansson didn't mind doing that at all, a little hypocritical if you ask me)

Charlize Theron had to be uglied up for her oscar role. why not just hire an actress who had the ability and was plain-looking?

I think there should be more roles for women that are fleshed out and fully realized, but I think the blame game that goes on is waaaay too simplified and inaccurate as to all who are responsible for a lack of them.

that's right, if you don't like the types of roles you're being offered, just shut up and refuse them. just like if you're a female reporter at Fox News and you don't like Roger Ailes and BIll O'Reilly sticking their hands up your skirt, just stay quiet and quit and go work somewhere else. or if you're a single mom and you don't like that you're only able to find minimum wage jobs that don't come close to paying a living wage, just don't take those jobs and surely something better-paying will come along eventually. keeping your mouth shut always leads to improvements.

if ScarJo is really as useless and talentless as you say, why would she turn down any role she was offered? Hollywood is full of plenty of superhot young women with little or no acting ability, finding a cheaper, more pliable replacement would be no trouble at all. that's not going to increase the number of worthy female roles in hollywood films. it's not going to decrease the number of shitty roles. in fact, a number of high-profile actresses like Jessica Chastain have done that, have turned down roles. but you have to achieve a pretty high level of fame and security to be able to have that privilege. the vast majority of actresses aren't in the position to be selective about what roles they take, to demand equal pay to their male co-stars, etc.

i find it odd to lay the blame on ScarJo and Charlize Theron and all those other pretty actresses for being offered roles and opportunities because they're too beautiful, rather than blaming the people who make the movies, the producers and studio executives and casting agents who decide who does or doesn't get offered a role or hired for a job. is it their fault they're so beautiful? should they just go around saying "i'm too hot to play that part" any time they are offered a job that could be played by a plain or ugly actress? it's really easy to tell other people to turn down jobs and paychecks out of principle. never mind that it's conflating two different issues, the lack of good female roles overall and the lack of opportunity for less attractive actresses. but, even though they're two different issues, they do have the same fundamental cause (along with the issues of whitewashing and lack of roles for other ethnicities as well), which is that hollywood is still a rich white boys' club, and as long as there is a lack of diversity among studio executives, producers, writers and directors and all the people who are responsible for making movies, and making decisions about what kinds of movies get made, what kinds of stories they tell, what kinds of characters they create, as long as those decisions are mostly made by white men, they're mostly going to reflect the tastes and interests of white men.

of course, you are going to try to oversimplify things. because that is how life is, right, its black and white, all one way or all another. you're like a little Trump jr, you try to make up shit that people never said and then act self-righteous in condemning it. I never said Johnson was useless and talent less, not even close. just a total bullshit fabrication on your part to prop up your little self-congratulatory pro-feminist diatribe. I see you give her a pass on taking part that should have gone to an Asian actress, but hey, fuck those not-white actresses, eh? no reason they should expect a fair shot, right? pretty white actresses should be treated with respect, but ethnic actresses need to wait in line in your book, eh? I think actresses like Johansson could afford to go a while without pay in order to bring about change. ever heard of a strike? solidarity? too much to expect women to look out for each other, eh?

I'll use your same logic to excuse men in hollywood. come on, those guys making decisions have jobs to protect, too, just like those model-actresses you are falling over yourself to defend. you expect studio execs to risk their jobs to make a social statement that you feel is "right" but you don't feel that millionaire actresses should be asked to take any risk or lose any pay to bring about change. poor poor Scarlett Johansson, life is so tough for her, its good that she has champions like you to defend her, what an oppressed life she lives.